* William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com> wrote:
> * William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com> wrote:
> >> [...] sched_yield() semantics are yet another twist.
>
> On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 08:40:35PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > that's nonsense, sched_yield() semantics are totally uninteresting. It
> > is a fundamentally broken interface.
> [...] As an interface it may be poor and worse yet poorly specified,
> [...]
that's the only thing that matters to fundamental design questions like
this.
> The content of my comment was that the patch does something to
> sched_yield() semantics, so it raises the question of what will happen
> in benchmarks and other performance affairs that are sensitive to
> sched_yield() semantics changes.
the correct aproach to the "sys_sched_yield() is an API that sucks"
problem is to simply _not use it_. User-space is figuring that out now,
fortunately.
Ingo
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers